[10:22] test test.

[11:15] >> nigel joseph: welcome,

[11:16] everyone, to the MAY 11th,

[11:17] 2026 public hearing of the

[11:19] planning commission on city of

[11:20] tampa comprehensive plan

[11:20] amendments.

[11:21] We thank you for attending this

[11:22] meeting.

[11:22] Your comments and participation

[11:24] are encouraged.

[11:25] For those attending in-person

[11:27] and wishing to speak on any

[11:29] agenda item, please sign the

[11:30] register at the rear of the room

[11:32] and turn off any devices that

[11:33] MAY be a distraction.

[11:35] To minimize feedback, all online

[11:36] participants in the meeting will

[11:37] be muted until it is their

[11:37] opportunity to speak.

[11:39] Planning commissioners should

[11:40] unmute themselves to indicate

[11:42] that they would like to speak.

[11:43] Please be sure to state your

[11:44] name at the beginning of your

[11:45] remarks for the benefit of the

[11:45] clerk.

[11:46] There will be an opportunity for

[11:48] members of the public to provide

[11:48] comments.

[11:51] When your name is called, you

[11:52] will be unmuted when it is your

[11:53] time to speak.

[11:54] Wait until the chair calls on

[11:55] you to begin speaking.

[11:56] State your

[11:58] state your name at the beginning

[11:59] of your comments and adhere to

[12:00] the time limits.

[12:02] If anybody is watching via htv

[12:03] and would like to provide

[12:04] comments for the local

[12:05] government hearing, please email

[12:09] them to planner@plancom.Org.

[12:10] For those of you who are not

[12:11] familiar with our process, the

[12:12] meeting will be conducted a

[12:13] follows.

[12:14] The agenda item will be

[12:15] introduced, staff will give

[12:16] their presentation with a

[12:17] 15-minute time limit.

[12:19] The applicant will be given the

[12:19] opportunity to make a

[12:21] presentation with a 15-minute

[12:21] time limit.

[12:23] Following presentations, members

[12:23] of the public MAY address the

[12:26] planning commission when

[12:27] recognized by the CHAIRMAN.

[12:28] Public comment will be heard for

[12:30] three minutes per person.

[12:32] The applicant will be afforded a

[12:33] three-minute period for rebuttal

[12:34] or response.

[12:35] Planning commissioners will ask

[12:35] questions.

[12:36] Public comment will be closed.

[12:38] Then upon a motion, second and

[12:40] discussion, a vote will be

[12:41] taken.

[12:42] To all participants, please note

[12:44] that tonight's hearing concerns

[12:45] proposed changes to the

[12:48] comprehensive plan.

[12:49] Presentations should not include

[12:50] matters related to zoning

[12:51] applications and site plans that

[12:52] are not before the commission.

[12:53] Zoning conditions are not

[12:54] relevant to plan amendments and

[12:55] MAY not be considered by the

[12:57] planning commission.

[12:58] The planning commission's

[12:59] purview in making a

[13:00] recommendation is requiremented

[13:02] to consistency or inconsistency

[13:03] with the comprehensive plan and

[13:05] with that, I'd like to ask the

[13:06] clerk's representative to please

[13:08] call roll.

[13:10] >> good evning, commissioners.

[13:11] Bowden.

[13:14] >> here.

[13:14] >> cardenas.

[13:16] Cona.

[13:16] >> here.

[13:18] >> jemison.

[13:21] >> here.

[13:21] >> kugler.

[13:22] >> here.

[13:22] >> linkous.

[13:24] Louk.

[13:26] >> here.

[13:27] >> sieben.

[13:28] Sienk.

[13:30] >> here.

[13:31] >> berry.

[13:31] >> here.

[13:33] >> orton.

[13:33] >> here.

[13:34] >> joseph.

[13:34] >> nigel joseph: here.

[13:35] >> you have a quorum, sir.

[13:38] >> nigel joseph: thank you.

[13:39] All right.

[13:43] Our first item of business is

[13:46] 2a, ta/cpa 26-01, comprehensive

[13:49] plan map amendment 1605 north

[13:50] waters court and the presenter

[13:51] is quinn steele.

[13:52] >> good evening, qunn steele,

[13:53] planning commission staff.

[14:00] This item is ta/cpa 26-01 for

[14:01] 1605 north waters court.

[14:02] The request before you is

[14:04] privately initiated and small

[14:04] scale.

[14:06] Covering approximately

[14:07] 3.39 acres and the request is to

[14:09] change the future land use

[14:10] designation from community mixed

[14:13] use 35 to urban mixed use 60.

[14:15] Here is a general location map.

[14:16] The subject site is located

[14:17] within the central tampa

[14:18] planning district.

[14:20] The central park urban village.

[14:22] The historic ybor neighborhood.

[14:24] The ybor city local historic

[14:26] district and the central park

[14:26] cra.

[14:28] This map shows an aerial of the

[14:29] subject site outlined in yellow.

[14:31] I did want to mention there has

[14:32] been a lot of recent development

[14:34] in the surrounding area so this

[14:35] aerial MAY not fully reflect

[14:37] current conditions.

[14:39] their site fronts east 7th

[14:41] avenue a major commercial

[14:42] corridor in ybor city and

[14:44] located about 230 feet east of

[14:46] north nebraska avenue which is a

[14:47] designated transit emphasis

[14:48] corridor.

[14:49] Nebraska avenue also marks the

[14:51] boundary for the cbd periphery,

[14:54] west of nebraska and south of

[14:56] east 3rd avenue allows desity

[14:58] and intensity bonuses up to 2.5%

[14:58] of

[15:02] 200%under the designation and the

[15:04] red dashed line shown here

[15:05] represents the boundary for the

[15:06] ybor city local historic

[15:08] district to the north and east.

[15:09] The surrounding area is mixed

[15:11] use with multi-family commercial

[15:13] and institutional uses

[15:16] immediately south are booker t.

[15:18] Washington and the robert w.

[15:18] Saunders library.

[15:21] To the west is a church and

[15:26] drive-thru restaurant is the gte

[15:27] building.

[15:30] The gasworx development are to

[15:32] the southeast with the channel

[15:34] district further beyond the

[15:34] frame.

[15:36] This is a photo looking directly

[15:39] is he subject site along south

[15:40] henderson avenue.

[15:42] Looking east or east scott site,

[15:45] these are the law union

[15:46] apartments and the subject site

[15:48] is out of frame behind the

[15:48] camera.

[15:50] This is looking south of the

[15:52] site along estelle street

[15:53] towards the elementary school

[15:54] and the subject site is out of

[15:56] frame to the left.

[15:57] Looking west along east

[15:58] henderson avenue, west of the

[16:00] subject site and the subject

[16:02] site is behind the camera out of

[16:02] frame.

[16:04] And then looking west across

[16:05] north nebraska avenue towards

[16:06] downtown, the subject site is

[16:10] out of frame to the rear about

[16:11] 230 feet.

[16:12] This map shows the adopted

[16:15] future land use as cmu-35

[16:16] allowing medium density

[16:17] residential and commercial uses

[16:20] at 35 units per acre or 2.0

[16:21] F.A.R. Which surrounds the site

[16:21] on all sides.

[16:25] To the east along 7th avenue

[16:28] is umu-60, there are additional

[16:31] parcels associated with the

[16:32] gasworx development.

[16:34] To the west of nebraska avenue

[16:38] includes umu-60 and rmu-35.

[16:39] Further is recreation open space

[16:40] tampa park plaza and further

[16:41] north is r-20.

[16:43] This map shows the proposed

[16:45] future land use as urban mixed

[16:47] use 60 which would allow high

[16:49] density and intensity, mixed use

[16:50] development up to 60 units per

[16:53] acre or 3.25 F.A.R.

[16:55] This amendment would increase

[16:57] the maximum from 118 to 203

[16:58] dwelling units and the allowable

[17:02] intensity from just over 295,000

[17:07] square feet to just over 497,000

[17:08] square feet for residential or

[17:09] non-residential uses.

[17:11] It would introduce commercial

[17:12] intensive uses and increase the

[17:13] allowable density and intensity

[17:14] on the site.

[17:16] We sent this amendment out for

[17:17] agency review and did not

[17:18] receive any objections, although

[17:20] the school board noted that

[17:20] washington elementary and blake

[17:22] high school are projected to

[17:25] exceed capacity.

[17:27] In considering this amendment,

[17:27] staff reviewed compatibility

[17:29] with the ybor city local

[17:31] historic district.

[17:31] Any future development would be

[17:35] subject to design standards by

[17:38] the barrio latin america

[17:38] commission, it is compatible

[17:40] with the historic character and

[17:43] surrounding area.

[17:45] Planning commission staff finds

[17:46] the report -- excuse me.

[17:47] Planning commission staff finds

[17:49] the request supports a compact

[17:51] city form by directing growth to

[17:52] the central park urban village

[17:55] which is an ara intended to

[17:55] accommodate higher density mixed

[17:56] use development.

[17:59] This site is also within a cra

[18:02] and currently underutilized so

[18:03] it would have more efficient use

[18:04] of land and infrastructure.

[18:07] In addition the site is located

[18:10] in close proximity to transit,

[18:11] multimodal infrastructure

[18:14] including the corridor along

[18:18] nebraska, teco, hart bus station

[18:19] and higher density and intensity

[18:20] in this location.

[18:23] It has policies ensuring

[18:25] adequate supply of housing.

[18:28] This would provide opportunities

[18:29] for growth helping to

[18:30] accommodate the city's projected

[18:31] growth population.

[18:32] Planning commission staff

[18:33] recommends tht the proposed map

[18:34] amendment be found consistent

[18:36] with the goals, objectives and

[18:37] policies of the tampa

[18:38] comprehensive plan.

[18:39] And I am available for any

[18:40] questions.

[18:40] >> nigel joseph: thank you.

[18:45] Is there an applicant

[18:45] presentation?

[18:59] >> good evening.

[19:01] Good evening, megan smith here

[19:03] on behalf of the applicant,

[19:04] tampa park apartments.

[19:05] Want to thank planning

[19:06] commission staff for covering

[19:07] everything.

[19:08] They did a fantastic job and

[19:10] feel like it was a very thorough

[19:11] review.

[19:12] Kind of wanted to touch on a

[19:13] couple of things and be quick

[19:15] and efficient with our time.

[19:18] So as she said, cbd periphery is

[19:19] immediately to the west

[19:20] following nebraska.

[19:25] For our site, we are in the

[19:27] central tampa planning district

[19:32] and local ybor historic

[19:33] district.

[19:35] We've got seminole heights,

[19:35] ybor, channel district and

[19:37] downtown tampa that we know are

[19:38] all growing.

[19:39] Those are within a five-minute

[19:41] commute from our location.

[19:43] And so we really feel like this

[19:46] would help bring and incentivize

[19:50] an area that is currently being

[19:50] underutilized.

[19:53] Our request is to go from cmu-35

[19:55] to umu-60 so that is the adopted

[19:56] proposed map.

[19:59] And then I know quinn touched on

[20:01] this and I want to hit it once

[20:01] more.

[20:02] With that cbd periphery, about a

[20:04] third of the surrounding

[20:05] properties can actually double

[20:05] their F.A.R.

[20:08] So what we are up against on

[20:11] both sides is 7.0 and 6.0 F.A.R.

[20:14] To the west and south and umu-60

[20:16] carrying on that gasworx

[20:17] development as well as the ybor

[20:20] historic district.

[20:22] Transportation wise, which

[20:23] supports the land use policies,

[20:25] we've got hart route 9 that

[20:26] connects from downtown tampa up

[20:28] to the university as well as the

[20:30] streetcar is located just a

[20:31] 15-minute walk through ybor.

[20:33] And then that can bring you into

[20:34] downtown tampa as well.

[20:36] So we feel like this is really

[20:37] connected with the surrounding

[20:39] areas and helps support that

[20:40] intensification.

[20:41] and with that, I will conclude

[20:42] my presentation and I'm

[20:44] available for any questions.

[20:44] >> nigel joseph: all right.

[20:45] Thank you very much.

[20:47] We didn't have anyone sign up in

[20:48] the public comment for this one

[20:50] so I will turn it over to the

[20:52] commissioners for questions,

[20:56] comments, discussions.

[20:59] Not seeing -- commissioner louk,

[20:59] no?

[20:59] All right.

[21:02] Then I'm going to go on ahead

[21:03] and close the public comment on

[21:05] this and open it up to motions

[21:06] from the commissioners on this

[21:07] item.

[21:07] Commissioner louk.

[21:08] >> thank you, MR. Chair.

[21:12] I move we find cpa 26-01

[21:12] consistent with the tampa

[21:14] comprehensive plan and forward

[21:15] this representation to tampa

[21:17] city council.

[21:18] >> second.

[21:18] >> nigel joseph: all right, a

[21:19] motion of consistency by

[21:21] commissioner louk, second by

[21:21] commissioner cona.

[21:23] Any questions, comments or

[21:24] discussions from the

[21:25] commissioners before we take our

[21:26] vote on this one?

[21:27] Not seeing any, then would all

[21:29] signify their agreement by

[21:30] saying aye.

[21:30] [Ayes]

[21:32] Those opposed?

[21:34] That motion carries unanimously.

[21:35] All right.

[21:39] Next up, we hae agenda item 2b,

[21:43] ta/cpa 26-02, comprehensive plan

[21:46] map amendment 1701 east 2nd

[21:50] avenue and the presenter is meg

[21:53] Mccarthy.

[21:56] >> good evening, meaghan

[21:56] Mccarthy, planning commission

[21:57] staff.

[22:00] This is the hearing for ta/cpa

[22:03] 2026-02 located at 1701 east

[22:04] 2nd avenue.

[22:06] This is a privately initiated

[22:07] small scale amendment.

[22:12] And the subject site encompasses

[22:13] approximately.39 acres.

[22:15] The request is to go from light

[22:15] industrial future land use

[22:19] designation to urban mixed use

[22:19] 60.

[22:20] The subject site is located

[22:22] within the central tampa

[22:23] planning district.

[22:25] The historic ybor neighborhood,

[22:27] ybor city local historic

[22:30] district as well as the coastal

[22:31] high hazard area.

[22:32] This is an aerial of the subject

[22:33] site with the subject site

[22:35] outlined in yellow.

[22:37] The surrounding area includes

[22:37] industrial uses.

[22:39] Directly to the east and south,

[22:43] as well as further east along

[22:45] adamo drive.

[22:46] Scattered commercial uses as

[22:48] well as residential further

[22:50] north of east second avenue.

[22:51] While the subject site is not

[22:52] within the ybor city urban

[22:54] village or port activity center,

[22:55] those boundaries are just to the

[22:59] north and south of the site

[23:00] respectively.

[23:02] Starting with our subject site

[23:03] photos, this is looking directly

[23:05] at the subject site from north

[23:07] 17th street.

[23:09] This is looking at industrial

[23:10] uses on the east side of the

[23:12] subject site with the subject

[23:14] site behind the camera.

[23:16] This is looking at commercial

[23:17] uses on the west side of the

[23:20] subject site.

[23:21] Here we are looking south of the

[23:24] subject site at the salmon

[23:25] expressway overpass.

[23:28] Next we're looking west along

[23:29] adamo drive with the subject

[23:31] site in the frame.

[23:34] And lastly looking east along

[23:37] adamo drive.

[23:39] This is -- here we have

[23:40] referenced an historic map taken

[23:43] from ta/cpa 06-26 before it was

[23:44] approved to change the area

[23:46] outlined in pink from heavy

[23:47] industrial to the urban mixed

[23:49] use 60 that you'll see on the

[23:50] next slide.

[23:51] This gives some perspective on

[23:54] the transition from industrial

[23:55] to mixed use designations over

[23:57] the last 20 years as a result of

[23:59] multiple plan amendments in the

[24:02] surrounding area including 06-26

[24:04] as well as 07-03, and more

[24:07] recently plan amendment 22-28

[24:09] which approved multiple parcels

[24:10] to umu-60 including the one

[24:12] directly north of our current

[24:15] subject site.

[24:18] This is the adopted future land

[24:21] use map with the subject site

[24:22] outlined directly to the east

[24:24] and to the southeast are light

[24:26] and heavy industrial.

[24:28] Mixed use categories including

[24:32] umu-60, cmu-35, gmu-24 and cc-35

[24:34] comprise the rest of the

[24:35] surrounding area to the north,

[24:37] south, east and west.

[24:40] The teal line delineates the

[24:41] coastal high hazard area, the

[24:42] portion of the subject site

[24:54] within the chha is just over

[24:54] [Inaudible].

[24:56] Under the adopted F.L.U. Of

[24:59] light industrial, the site not

[25:00] eligible for residential

[25:00] development.

[25:02] Currently the site can be

[25:04] considered for 25,482 square

[25:05] feet of industrial uses.

[25:08] Under the proposed umu-60

[25:09] designation, the site MAY be

[25:11] considered for 23 residential

[25:13] development units or 55,211

[25:15] square feet of residential or

[25:17] non-residential uses.

[25:18] The amendment would introduce

[25:20] the potential for residential

[25:22] uses and increase allowable

[25:24] residential and non-residential

[25:25] square footage and remove the

[25:29] consideration of industrial

[25:29] uses.

[25:31] This application was sent to our

[25:32] partner agencies and there were

[25:35] no options to the request.

[25:35] The city of tampa planning

[25:36] department found the request

[25:37] comparable and compatible with

[25:40] the surrounding area and noted

[25:42] the potential conflict between

[25:43] land development code

[25:44] requirements and industrial

[25:48] development on this site.

[25:50] Staff considered industrial

[25:51] preservation policies as the

[25:52] site is currently under the

[25:54] light industrial F.L.U.

[25:56] Designation and the industrial

[25:57] general zoning category.

[25:59] As well as policies related to

[26:00] the coastal high hazard area

[26:01] being that all of the subject

[26:03] site is considered within the

[26:05] chha since the percentage within

[26:06] is over 50%.

[26:08] As noted in the staff report and

[26:11] by the city of tampa staff, due

[26:13] to minimum requirements for

[26:15] development within the zoning

[26:17] category the parcel is unlikely

[26:19] to allow for the development of

[26:20] a true employment generating

[26:20] industrial use.

[26:23] Due to this factor as well as

[26:26] documented trends towards mixed

[26:29] use, staff found the request

[26:30] consistency and removal for

[26:31] consideration of industrial uses

[26:35] on the site.

[26:36] The proposed amendment is

[26:39] recommended to be found

[26:40] consistent with the policies and

[26:41] objectives of the comprehensive

[26:43] plan including policy related to

[26:45] compatibility with the

[26:46] surrounding development pattern,

[26:48] promotion of densities

[26:49] supportive of mixed use and

[26:52] transit and encouraging adequate

[26:54] housing supply and infill

[26:54] development.

[26:55] As the surrounding area is noted

[26:57] to be in transition to a more

[27:00] mixed use development pattern

[27:05] north of -- west of north 21st

[27:05] street.

[27:05] Planning commission staff

[27:07] recommends that the proposed map

[27:08] amendment be found consistency

[27:10] with the goals, objectives and

[27:11] policies of the tampa

[27:12] comprehensive plan and this

[27:13] concludes my presentation.

[27:14] I'm available for any questions.

[27:15] >> nigel joseph: thank you.

[27:22] Is there an applicant

[27:29] presentation?

[27:31] >> good evening, commissioners,

[27:33] alex schaler, 400 north ashley

[27:36] drive with gardner brewer

[27:37] hudson.

[27:37] I'll make this brief.

[27:40] I think this request is pretty

[27:40] straightforward.

[27:43] I was before you in 2024 with a

[27:45] very large comprehensive plan

[27:46] amendment request and we had it

[27:48] split into two halves.

[27:50] We had a portion north of adamo.

[27:52] We also had what's been

[27:55] classified as ybor harbor.

[27:58] In the north of adamo portion,

[28:00] this piece was left out.

[28:03] And at the time, our client, the

[28:04] applicant, was in negotiations

[28:06] to acquire this little strip but

[28:07] did not yet own it.

[28:09] Given the fact that they did not

[28:10] have ownership of that piece of

[28:13] land, we did not include that in

[28:14] the original application.

[28:15] So what we're requesting from

[28:18] you all this evening is a

[28:20] recommendation of approval for

[28:22] that umu-60 that's currently

[28:24] located north of this strip to

[28:27] be extended to the south.

[28:29] This is a very small site.

[28:31] As staff mentioned, it's not

[28:33] overly suitable for industrial

[28:36] uses just given the size of it.

[28:37] Typically industrial use vs a

[28:38] larger footprint and need more

[28:39] open space area.

[28:41] And this is currently, like I

[28:42] said,.4 acres and it's

[28:45] currently serving as a parking

[28:45] lot.

[28:47] As meg mentioned, this area is

[28:48] trending towards mixed use.

[28:49] Both residential and commercial,

[28:53] you all are very aware of that

[28:55] with gasworx and ybor harbor and

[28:59] some of the future PDAs in the

[29:00] queue to be heard at city

[29:01] council.

[29:02] From a planning perspective,

[29:04] this is located along a transit

[29:05] emphasis corridor.

[29:06] Adamo drive is one of those and

[29:08] it is located near the ybor city

[29:09] urban village.

[29:11] So as meg mentioned, staff found

[29:12] this consistent and that's all I

[29:12] have.

[29:15] But I'm happy to answer any

[29:15] questions.

[29:16] >> nigel joseph: thank you.

[29:17] We didn't have anyone sign up in

[29:18] the public comment for this one

[29:20] either, so questions, comments,

[29:22] thoughts to the commissioners on

[29:24] this one?

[29:26] Not seeing much action, I'll go

[29:27] on ahead and close the public

[29:29] comment on this one and open it

[29:30] up to motions from the

[29:32] commissioners on this item.

[29:33] Commissioner cona.

[29:37] >> yeah, motion to find ta/cpa

[29:38] 26 -- 02 consistent with the

[29:39] comprehensive plan.

[29:39] >> second.

[29:40] >> nigel joseph: all right.

[29:41] motion of consistency finding by

[29:42] commissioner cona.

[29:43] Second to that motion by

[29:45] commissioner kugler.

[29:47] Any questions, comments or

[29:47] statements from the

[29:48] commissioners before we take our

[29:50] vote in not seeing any, then

[29:52] will all signify their

[29:54] agreement by saying aye.

[29:54] [Ayes]

[29:56] Those opposed.

[29:56] [Aye]

[30:00] So the cheese stands alone.

[30:01] [Laughter]

[30:01] Commissioner

[30:03] commissioner joseph against, all

[30:04] the other planning commissioners

[30:09] in favor of and the motion

[30:10] carries 7-1.

[30:10] All right.

[30:12] Thank you very much.

[30:15] And that is our last item,

[30:17] agenda item for this city of

[30:17] tampa public hearing.

[30:21] I will go on ahead and adjourn

[30:21] this city of tampa public

[30:25] hearing at 6:28 and read us into

[30:26] our hillsborough county public

[30:27] hearing if everybody will bear

[30:30] with me for just a moment.

[30:33] Welcome, everyone, to the MAY

[30:33] 11th, 2026 public hearing of

[30:34] the planning commission on

[30:35] hillsborough county

[30:37] comprehensive plan amendments.

[30:39] We thank you for attending this

[30:39] meeting.

[30:39] Your comments and participation

[30:41] are encouraged.

[30:42] For those attending in-person

[30:43] arn

[30:45] and wishing to speak, please

[30:46] sign the agenda at the rear of

[30:49] the room and turn off devices.

[30:50] All online participants in the

[30:52] meeting will be muted until it

[30:53] is their opportunity to speak.

[30:54] Planning commissioners should

[30:56] unmute themselves to indicate

[30:58] they would like to speak.

[31:00] Please be sure to state your

[31:02] name at the beginning of your

[31:03] remarks for the benefit of the

[31:03] clerk.

[31:04] There will be an opportunity for

[31:07] members of the public to provide

[31:07] comments.

[31:08] When your name is called, you

[31:10] will be unmuted when it is your

[31:11] turn to speak.

[31:12] Please wait until the chair

[31:14] calls on you to begin speaking.

[31:14] State your name at the beginning

[31:15] of your comments and adhere to

[31:17] the time limits.

[31:19] If anyone has difficulties or is

[31:20] watching via htv and would like

[31:22] to provide comments to be

[31:24] included in the record for the

[31:25] local government hearing, please

[31:28] email them to

[31:28] planner@plancom.Org.

[31:29] For those of you who are not

[31:30] familiar with our process, the

[31:31] meeting will be conducted as

[31:32] follows.

[31:33] The agenda item will be

[31:33] introduced.

[31:34] Staff will give their

[31:35] presentation with a 15-minute

[31:35] time limit.

[31:37] The applicant will be given the

[31:37] opportunity to make a

[31:38] presentation with a 15-minute

[31:39] time limit.

[31:41] Following presentations, members

[31:42] of the public MAY address the

[31:43] planning commission when

[31:45] recognized by the CHAIRMAN.

[31:45] Public comment will be heard for

[31:46] three minutes per person.

[31:48] The applicant will be afforded a

[31:49] three-minute period for rebuttal

[31:50] or response.

[31:51] Planning commissioners will then

[31:52] ask questions.

[31:53] Public comment will be closed.

[31:55] Upon a motion, a second and

[31:57] discussion, a vote will be

[31:58] taken.

[31:59] To all participants, please note

[32:01] that tonight's hearing concerns

[32:01] proposed changes to the

[32:03] comprehensive plan.

[32:04] Presentations should not include

[32:05] matters related to zoning

[32:06] applications and site plans that

[32:08] are not before the commission.

[32:09] Zoning conditions are not

[32:10] relevant to plan amendments and

[32:12] MAY not be considered by the

[32:12] planning commission.

[32:13] The planning commission's

[32:14] purview in making a

[32:16] recommendation is limited to

[32:17] consistency or inconsistency

[32:18] with the comprehensive plan.

[32:20] With that, I'd like to ask the

[32:22] clerk's representative to please

[32:26] call roll again.

[32:27] >> bowden.

[32:29] >> here.

[32:29] >> cardenas.

[32:31] Cona.

[32:31] >> here.

[32:33] >> jemison.

[32:34] >> here.

[32:35] >> kugler.

[32:36] >> here.

[32:37] >> linkous.

[32:38] Louk.

[32:40] >> here.

[32:41] >> sieben.

[32:42] Sienk.

[32:43] >> here.

[32:44] >> berry.

[32:44] >> here.

[32:45] >> orton.

[32:45] >> here.

[32:46] >> joseph.

[32:47] >> nigel joseph: here.

[32:48] >> you have a quorum, sir.

[32:49] >> nigel joseph: thank you.

[32:49] All right.

[32:53] First up, we have item 2a,

[32:56] hc/cpa 26-07, comprehensive plan

[32:58] map amendment northwest of

[32:59] hillsborough avenue and george

[33:02] road and the presenter is alexis

[33:02] myers.

[33:04] >> good evening, alexis myers,

[33:05] planning commission staff.

[33:08] I'm here to present hc/cpa 26-07

[33:09] located northwest of

[33:10] hillsborough avenue and george

[33:11] road.

[33:12] This is a privately initiated

[33:13] map amendment that is small in

[33:15] scale and approximately

[33:16] 6.7 acres.

[33:17] The applicant is requesting to

[33:17] change the future land use

[33:19] designation from residential 6

[33:22] and office commercial 20 to

[33:23] light industrial planned.

[33:25] This is the general location

[33:25] map.

[33:27] It is in the urban service area

[33:28] within the limits of the town

[33:29] 'n' country community plan.

[33:31] It is located north of

[33:32] hillsborough avenue and west of

[33:35] george road.

[33:36] Here is an aerial of the site.

[33:39] The site is outlined in pink.

[33:40] Vacant land is on the subject

[33:40] site.

[33:42] The property is in the

[33:48] evacuation zone "a," fema ae,

[33:48] public/quasi-public

[33:49] institutional and single-family

[33:50] uses to the north and west,

[33:52] light commercial uses located

[33:53] south, west and east across

[33:54] george road.

[33:55] Light industrial uses are also

[33:58] to the east across george road

[34:02] and west of hillsborough avenue.

[34:04] Here are some pictures of the

[34:04] site.

[34:05] This is looking at the subject

[34:08] site from george road.

[34:09] This is looking at the subject

[34:11] site from george road as well.

[34:12] Single-family uses are located

[34:14] north and west of the subject

[34:14] site.

[34:16] And then if you can see in the

[34:17] distance, it's single-family

[34:19] right here.

[34:21] This is looking west towards

[34:22] west clifton street from george

[34:23] road.

[34:24] The subject site is located on

[34:27] the left.

[34:28] And this is looking east from

[34:29] george road to the light

[34:31] commercial use.

[34:34] The subject site is behind the

[34:35] photographer.

[34:36] And this is looking west from

[34:37] the subject site.

[34:40] I'm sorry, looking west of the

[34:41] subject site from george road to

[34:44] the light commercial use.

[34:45] Currently the future land use

[34:46] designation is residential 6 and

[34:47] office commercial 20.

[34:50] The res-6 category allows six

[34:52] dwelling units per gross

[34:52] undertaker

[34:56] acre.This designation allows for the

[34:59] consideration of agricultural,

[34:59] residential, neighborhood

[35:01] commercial, office uses,

[35:02] multipurpose projects and mixed

[35:05] use development.

[35:07] That category allows 20 dwelling

[35:08] units per gross acre and maximum

[35:10] floor area ratio of 0.75.

[35:12] This designation allows for the

[35:13] consideration of agricultural,

[35:14] community commercial type uses,

[35:16] office uses, mixed use

[35:17] developments and compatible

[35:19] residential uses.

[35:20] Other future land use categories

[35:23] shown in this map include urban

[35:25] mixed use 20 and community mixed

[35:27] use 12 to the east and

[35:29] residential 20 further

[35:29] southwest.

[35:30] The applicant is proposing to

[35:31] amend the future land use

[35:33] category to light industrial

[35:34] planned.

[35:36] The li-p category allows for a

[35:44] maximum floor area median income area ratio of.75.

[35:45] This designation allows for the

[35:46] consideration of agricultural,

[35:48] light industrial uses such as

[35:50] processing, manufacturing,

[35:53] recycling and storage materials

[35:55] as predominantly uses including

[35:57] support uses, warehousing and

[35:58] retail uses.

[36:00] Next are the impacts.

[36:02] As far as conditions, currently

[36:07] under res-6 and oc-20, the site

[36:11] can have 28 dwelling units or

[36:13] 51,945 square feet of

[36:17] residential uses.

[36:18] The proposed amendment will

[36:19] eliminate any potential

[36:21] residential density, allow

[36:23] greater commercial intensity and

[36:26] introduce light industrial uses.

[36:28] The following policies were

[36:28] considered by planning

[36:30] commission staff in evaluation

[36:31] of the amendment.

[36:32] While formulating or

[36:34] recommendation, pc staff reviews

[36:36] all related policies regarding

[36:36] the proposed request.

[36:38] Though the request is related to

[36:39] some general policies, staff

[36:43] found four main areas of

[36:44] inconsistency -- I'm sorry, four

[36:47] main areas of inconsistency.

[36:51] It isn't consistency with the

[36:52] following policies and

[36:52] procedures of the comprehensive

[36:52] plan.

[36:54] It does not demonstrate

[36:55] compatibility with the

[36:56] surrounding development pattern

[36:59] as envisioned by future land use

[37:02] section objective 3.1 and policy

[37:03] 3.1.3 due to the single-family

[37:04] uses.

[37:05] The proposed amendment would

[37:06] disrupt the intent and

[37:07] progression of lad use

[37:09] intensities and fail to provide

[37:11] a gradual and compatible

[37:12] transition envisioned by future

[37:14] land use policy 3.1.2.

[37:16] This established pattern creates

[37:17] a logical progression of land

[37:19] use from residential to

[37:20] commercial to mixed use and

[37:23] ultimately to industrial uses.

[37:24] The subject site located on the

[37:27] west side of george road falls

[37:29] outside of the area where higher

[37:31] intensity designations are

[37:34] currently concentrated.

[37:36] The introduction of light

[37:37] industrial uses at this location

[37:38] will result in a development

[37:40] that is inconsistent with the

[37:41] surrounding area and contrary to

[37:42] the policy framework intended to

[37:44] preserve and protect established

[37:46] residential communities as noted

[37:48] in future land use section

[37:50] objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.

[37:51] While the request would

[37:53] introduce light industrial uses,

[37:54] the applicant would be required

[37:57] to do a pd site plan rezoning

[37:59] which could contain mitigative

[38:00] strategies to address the

[38:03] existing residential to the

[38:03] west.

[38:04] Planning commission staff

[38:05] recommends that the proposed map

[38:07] amendment be found inconsistent

[38:09] with the goals, objectives and

[38:11] policies of the unincorporated

[38:12] hillsborough county

[38:12] comprehensive plan and this

[38:15] concludes my presentation for

[38:15] 26-07.

[38:16] >> nigel joseph: thank you.

[38:20] Is there an applicant

[38:21] presentation?

[38:23] >> good evening, commissioners.

[38:41] I have a powerpoint.

[38:42] Good evening, commissioners.

[38:43] My name is gina grimes.

[38:47] I'm with the law firm of bradley

[38:50] aaron and cummings, water

[38:51] street, here representing

[38:52] cadence partners which is the

[38:55] applicant on this comp plan from

[38:58] residential 6 and oc-20 to li-p.

[39:02] You have heard staff give their

[39:03] presentation.

[39:03] They have recommended

[39:07] inconsistency mainly based on

[39:09] the fact -- I'm sorry.

[39:10] Mainly based on the fact that

[39:12] they don't believe that it is

[39:14] compatible with the adjacent

[39:15] area.

[39:16] We believe that the reason they

[39:18] came to this conclusion is that

[39:20] they only evaluated the

[39:21] immediately applicant area and

[39:24] didn't look at the larger area

[39:25] in context with this site.

[39:28] When you evaluate the larger

[39:30] area, what you are going to see

[39:32] is the residential 6 comp plan

[39:33] category is no longer

[39:35] appropriate in this location.

[39:37] And furthermore, our site is not

[39:38] suitable for residential

[39:38] development.

[39:40] When you look at the expanded

[39:41] area, you also see that the

[39:43] location is consistent with the

[39:45] uses in the surrounding area.

[39:47] As you saw, there were

[39:48] industrial uses in close

[39:48] proximity.

[39:50] There's also the airport in

[39:51] close proximity and a lot of

[39:52] commercial uses along

[39:53] hillsborough avenue.

[39:55] You are also going to see that

[39:58] the location is consistent with

[40:00] the specific intent of the li-p

[40:02] policy and some other comp plan

[40:03] policies that we will address.

[40:07] And then lastly, we believe that

[40:09] the potential impact in the

[40:11] staff report was somewhat

[40:14] overstated in that they looked

[40:15] at the maximum development

[40:17] potential of the li-p as opposed

[40:19] to what we're actually proposing

[40:22] with the required pd.

[40:24] When you look at the subject

[40:25] site, you already know the

[40:28] location of it.

[40:30] It's about sx and a half acres.

[40:32] 1/3 of it has already got a comp

[40:34] plan category of oc-20.

[40:36] So two acres of it is already

[40:37] oc-20.

[40:39] As you heard from staff, it is

[40:39] vacant.

[40:40] Why is it vacant?

[40:42] That's a good question.

[40:45] The residential 6 category and

[40:47] the rc9 zoning on this portion

[40:50] of the site only allows

[40:50] residential.

[40:51] The property owner has marketed

[40:52] it for residential for about

[40:54] five or six years now.

[40:56] And if you can't get residential

[40:58] or multi-family residential on a

[40:59] site in this market, you're

[41:01] never going to get it.

[41:03] And the site has remained

[41:03] vacant.

[41:05] And we have been told by -- and

[41:07] the owner has been told by real

[41:08] estate professionals that the

[41:11] site itself is not appropriate

[41:12] for residential.

[41:15] And the reason for that is the

[41:16] location and the configuration

[41:16] of the site.

[41:19] If you look at it, it's 330 feet

[41:22] wide by almost 900 feet long.

[41:24] A long rectangular lot like that

[41:26] makes it very difficult to get

[41:28] any development flexibility.

[41:29] The professionals, the real

[41:30] estate professionals have said

[41:33] that the site is too small for

[41:34] multi-family residential

[41:34] development.

[41:36] It can't support a surface

[41:39] parking lot and the on-site

[41:41] retention forcing you to go to

[41:42] structured parking.

[41:44] When you go to structured

[41:45] parking, as everybody knows, it

[41:46] substantially increases the

[41:49] price and the construction costs

[41:52] making rents too high for this

[41:52] location.

[41:54] Especially we're told because of

[41:58] the proximity to the residential -- I'm sorry, to the

[42:00] industrial on the other side of

[42:02] george road and in the

[42:02] surrounding area.

[42:04] So here is a comp plan map that

[42:06] was in the staff report.

[42:08] And this shows the existing uses

[42:09] in the adjacent area.

[42:12] And this is -- the staff

[42:14] evaluated this.

[42:15] You'll see the subject site.

[42:16] The subject site is not

[42:18] immediately abutting

[42:19] residential.

[42:20] To the north you see the blue

[42:22] area is actually a full one acre

[42:24] parcel owned by hillsborough

[42:25] county that's intended to be

[42:27] used for drainage.

[42:28] Along the western boundary of

[42:30] the site, you see some blue

[42:32] underneath that black line.

[42:34] That also is another drainage

[42:34] area.

[42:36] So we don't directly abut the

[42:39] residential, although it is

[42:39] close-by.

[42:41] To the east of the site, you see

[42:43] what's called light industrial.

[42:44] I don't think that industrial

[42:47] was all that light because what

[42:50] it contains is a paver company

[42:54] and a lot of outdoor storage and

[42:56] paver trucks that take material

[42:57] to various sites.

[43:01] You also have a used car lot.

[43:04] To the east of that is an

[43:06] industrial mini warehouse

[43:07] facility.

[43:09] South along of the site, along

[43:12] hillsborough avenue, you have a

[43:12] convenience store.

[43:14] You have some industrial

[43:14] already.

[43:17] What's will is a small

[43:18] manufacturing facility.

[43:19] Then you have several used car

[43:20] lots.

[43:21] You have a new car lot.

[43:22] You have some auto repair there.

[43:25] you can see a very small portion

[43:27] of gray right there next to the

[43:28] residential area.

[43:30] And again, all this goes to the

[43:33] point that there are these more

[43:34] intensive industrial and heavy

[43:37] commercial and light commercial

[43:39] uses immediately adjacent to the

[43:39] residential area.

[43:42] But when you go even further,

[43:44] and zoom out even further, what

[43:47] you see -- and this map is an

[43:49] actual future land use map.

[43:50] This is from the comp plan.

[43:52] You can see the subject site

[43:56] with the blue arrows in the

[43:56] bottom left-hand corner.

[43:59] You can see it, the parcel

[44:02] outlined there with the arrow.

[44:05] You can see there's substantial

[44:07] amounts of industrial future

[44:09] land use categories in close

[44:09] proximity.

[44:12] You also see more umu-20 and the

[44:15] cmu-12, all of which are

[44:17] adjacent to this residential

[44:17] area.

[44:18] And then when you go south of

[44:20] hillsborough avenue, you see

[44:21] something similar.

[44:23] You see more industrial, more

[44:25] umu and cmu directly abutting

[44:27] these residential areas.

[44:30] And so the question is, how did

[44:32] this area get to the point where

[44:36] there is so many industrial and

[44:37] heavy commercial uses in such

[44:39] close proximity to the

[44:39] residential?

[44:41] Well, the answer is pretty

[44:42] clear.

[44:43] It's tampa international

[44:43] airport.

[44:47] One of our community's most

[44:49] important and valuable assets.

[44:53] And this site is actually 1700

[44:55] linear feet from the airport.

[44:58] And I think it was unusual in

[44:59] this instance that the staff

[45:02] report did not address the

[45:04] proximity of the site to the

[45:05] airport because it's really an

[45:08] important issue when it comes to

[45:09] whether residential is

[45:11] appropriate on this site.

[45:13] Tia is going to cause daily

[45:14] impacts 24 hours a day probably

[45:17] on residential uses, things like

[45:18] noise, vibration and even

[45:18] safety.

[45:19] And that's why in your comp plan

[45:22] you have policies that address

[45:23] the airport and protecting the

[45:25] airport from incompatible uses

[45:26] in the area.

[45:30] You also have a requirement --

[45:32] and both of these sections are

[45:32] cited.

[45:34] The comp plan sections are

[45:34] cited.

[45:36] You also have a requirement that

[45:38] a noise exposure study is

[45:39] supposed to be evaluated so that

[45:40] you all can reassess the

[45:42] appropriate location of

[45:44] compatible and incompatible land

[45:48] uses to support the airport.

[45:50] And the existence of the airport

[45:52] in this proximity is probably

[45:53] one of the biggest reasons why

[45:57] we don't believe that

[45:58] residential is no longer

[45:59] appropriate in this area.

[46:01] Another reason is the coastal

[46:05] high hazard area.

[46:08] You have the coastal high hazard

[46:09] area covers all of that

[46:10] residential area and it covers

[46:12] some portions of the site.

[46:15] And you also have the site in

[46:16] evacuation zone "a."

[46:19] you also have policies in your

[46:24] comp plan that address -- in

[46:25] coastal management that address

[46:26] development in the coastal high

[46:28] hazard area and providing

[46:30] incentives to move development

[46:31] out of those high-risk areas.

[46:35] You even have comp plan policies

[46:37] that discourage residential in

[46:38] the coastal high hazard area.

[46:40] You have two provisions that I

[46:43] have cited here that flexes,

[46:45] using the flex provision to

[46:46] increased density is not

[46:47] permitted in the coastal high

[46:50] hazard and you also have density

[46:52] bonuses that are prohibited in

[46:54] the coastal high hazard.

[46:56] So we know -- you have heard why

[46:58] we believe that the residential

[47:00] is no larger appropriate for

[47:01] this site.

[47:03] But why is the site appropriate

[47:04] for light industrial?

[47:06] Well, there's three reasons.

[47:07] The first reason is there's

[47:09] already a mix of industrial uses

[47:11] in the surrounding area.

[47:13] I have walked you through.

[47:15] There's mini warehouses, heavy

[47:17] commercial, a paver company,

[47:20] auto sales north and south of

[47:21] hillsborough avenue.

[47:23] You also have a mix of

[47:27] industrial, light and heavy

[47:28] commercial F.L.U. Categories in

[47:28] the surrounding area.

[47:30] And that's the second reason

[47:31] that we believe that the light

[47:34] industrial was appropriate.

[47:36] You have substantial amounts of

[47:39] the li, just 1,000 feet from the

[47:39] site.

[47:42] You have oc-20, umu-20, cmu-12.

[47:45] All of these are mixed

[47:46] interspersed in very close

[47:48] proximity to this site.

[47:51] And the third reason that we

[47:53] believe that the site is

[47:55] appropriate for li-p is because

[47:57] of the stated intent in the comp

[48:00] plan for the li-p category.

[48:02] It's supposed to be in areas

[48:07] located outside of concentrated

[48:08] industrial.

[48:09] But where the need for a site

[48:11] plan would benefit and ensure

[48:13] land use compatibility.

[48:16] So I know that you said in your

[48:17] introductory remarks,

[48:17] MR. CHAIRMAN, that you can't

[48:20] consider the pd, but this is

[48:22] different because in li-p the pd

[48:24] is required by the comp plan.

[48:26] So I know you MAY not know the

[48:28] specifics of it, but I think

[48:29] they are upon because this is

[48:31] what shows how you can have

[48:33] light industrial on the site and

[48:34] still be compatible with the

[48:39] adjacent residential area.

[48:41] So we have a companion pd that's

[48:42] traveling with this comp plan

[48:42] amendment.

[48:45] It's going to be heard by the

[48:46] zhm in JUNE.

[48:50] We have substantial setbacks in

[48:54] that pd.

[48:56] We have over 100 feet on three

[49:00] sides and on the west side are

[49:00] 50 feet.

[49:02] We have buffer areas by the land

[49:02] development code.

[49:04] In those buffer areas, we have a

[49:05] buffer wall on three sides of

[49:10] the site.

[49:12] We have landscaping trees and

[49:13] shrubbery and we have a

[49:15] retention pond that also forms

[49:16] somewhat of a buffer in that

[49:17] area.

[49:19] Don't forget, too, there's other

[49:20] compatibility considerations

[49:22] that we'd like you to consider.

[49:24] And one of those is the ldc

[49:26] requirement for performance

[49:27] standards for manufacturing.

[49:30] So there are standards to ensure

[49:32] that manufacturing operates and

[49:33] doesn't have impacts necessarily

[49:35] on adjacent uses dealing with

[49:38] lighting, sound, vibration and

[49:39] airborne discharges.

[49:41] Another interesting point about

[49:43] this comp plan amendment and our

[49:46] companion pd is it terms

[49:48] turns out our

[49:49] traffic analysis shows -- we

[49:51] submit add traffic analysis with

[49:52] this comp plan amendment.

[49:55] It showed the proposed F.L.U.

[49:56] Actually generates fewer, 1600

[49:58] fewer daily trips than the

[50:01] adopted comp plan policies -- or

[50:03] adopted comp plan categories.

[50:05] So we think that's an important

[50:07] issue as far as compatibility

[50:08] concerns because it's going to

[50:10] have -- what we are proposing is

[50:12] going to have fewer impacts on

[50:13] the adjacent residential than

[50:14] what the existing F.L.U.

[50:16] Category has.

[50:19] A couple more points dealing

[50:21] with compatibility is that we

[50:24] are proposing lesser amounts of

[50:26] square footage than what the

[50:28] current F.L.U. Categories allow.

[50:30] Together, the oc-20 and the

[50:34] res-6 allow a total of 115,000

[50:35] square feet of commercial.

[50:38] We are proposing only 106,000

[50:41] square feet of light industrial.

[50:43] So that's a.365, about half of

[50:45] what the comp plan category

[50:46] allows.

[50:47] Lastly we'd like you to consider

[50:49] the fact that the uses are very

[50:49] limited.

[50:50] This isn't just any light

[50:51] industrial use.

[50:53] It's only warehouse, wholesale

[50:54] or manufacturing.

[50:55] Just those three.

[50:56] And then temporary storage of

[50:58] the bulk goods.

[51:00] As you have heard, it's in the

[51:02] town 'n' country community plan

[51:03] area.

[51:04] However, there's nothing in that

[51:06] plan that's applicable to this.

[51:09] And lastly, you heard no

[51:13] reviewing agencies have any

[51:14] objections.

[51:15] Again, the res-6 is not

[51:17] appropriate at this location.

[51:20] Our site just can't accommodate

[51:20] residential.

[51:23] The comp plan amendment to li-p

[51:25] is consistent with existing

[51:28] commercial uses and industrial

[51:32] uses and is consistent with

[51:34] existing commercial and

[51:35] industrial F.L.U. Categories.

[51:39] So we think our pd complements

[51:40] all that and provides the

[51:43] compatibility that the staff is

[51:43] rightfully looking for.

[51:46] So with that, we would ask that

[51:49] you recommend that this plan

[51:50] amendment be found consistent

[51:52] with the comprehensive plan.

[51:55] >> nigel joseph: thank you.

[51:57] We didn't have anyone sign up in

[51:59] the public comment for this one.

[52:01] I will turn it over to the

[52:02] commissioners for questions,

[52:08] comments, discussions on this

[52:08] one.

[52:10] Commissioner louk, I see you

[52:11] moving.

[52:13] >> I think I heard it in the

[52:14] applicant's presentation.

[52:15] What would be the linear footage

[52:17] of the nearest residential

[52:18] property line?

[52:19] Not dwelling but the atual

[52:22] property line.

[52:24] From the light industrial, if we

[52:25] were to go to light industrial.

[52:26] I guess it doesn't matter,

[52:29] parcel to parcel, what's the --

[52:29] >> yeah.

[52:32] On the west -- I want to show

[52:32] you.

[52:34] On the west side of the site --

[52:37] >> you have the --

[52:38] >> there's a building.

[52:39] There's a 30-foot buffer.

[52:42] There's a 20-foot drainage

[52:42] parcel.

[52:45] And then there's the property

[52:46] line to the residential on the

[52:48] west of that, to the west of

[52:49] that.

[52:51] Which is farther away from the

[52:52] existing industrial that you see

[52:59] in the south.

[53:00] Pardon?

[53:01] about 50.

[53:03] >> from the property line,

[53:04] there's 20 feet --

[53:04] >> correct.

[53:05] >> to the property line to the

[53:09] other property line.

[53:09] >> right.

[53:11] >> coastal high hazard, user

[53:13] error, looking through and

[53:14] thumbing through the report,

[53:15] what percentage of the property

[53:18] is in the chha, if any?

[53:19] >> nigel joseph: a lot of it.

[53:23] >> I would say it's a pretty

[53:23] good --

[53:24] >> so question for staff, given

[53:28] the majority of this is in

[53:29] there, if we were saying no to

[53:32] light industrial, we have a

[53:33] residential use on a portion of

[53:34] the property today, if you could

[53:36] wave your magic wand, what would

[53:41] be the appropriate use for this

[53:43] property?

[53:45] If it's not res-6 or light

[53:47] industrial, res-6 would be a

[53:48] tough pill given the chha.

[53:50] What would staff recommend if

[53:52] you could wave a magic wand?

[54:04] >> that is a good question.

[54:06] Probably something lesser

[54:07] intense than the light

[54:07] industrial planned.

[54:09] I think it would be better if it

[54:10] was on the eastern side of

[54:11] george road along with those

[54:15] other more intensive uses before

[54:18] the subject site, something less

[54:18] intensive.

[54:19] >> yeah.

[54:22] And I would just add to that,

[54:24] the residential 6 category does

[54:27] allow for them to -- it does not

[54:30] require them to build it for

[54:32] residential uses.

[54:34] They could build office or

[54:36] commercial uses under the

[54:37] residential 6.

[54:42] Those are allowed to be

[54:45] considered so unfortunately, we

[54:47] don't have a land use category

[54:50] that does not have residential

[54:57] allowance that is not light

[55:00] industrial.

[55:01] That makes it hard.

[55:04] All the land use categories

[55:07] allow residential and office and

[55:07] commercial.

[55:08] >> I'll say the applicant did

[55:11] say something interesting where

[55:13] this so closely ties to the pd

[55:14] when it's the light industrial

[55:15] case.

[55:16] When you look at what's allowed

[55:17] under light industrial which is

[55:19] like warehouse, distribution

[55:20] interests, contractor yards,

[55:23] cabinet makers, auto repair,

[55:25] hvac, light printing, light

[55:26] manufacturing assembly, the

[55:27] definitely

[55:29] devil is in the details of what

[55:30] could potentially go there with

[55:31] the concurrent pd.

[55:33] I know we can't consider that.

[55:37] So I mean I don't have a point

[55:39] there other than I'm is

[55:41] I'm not sure

[55:43] what the right long-term use is

[55:47] to it given the residential use.

[55:48] Those are thoughts.

[55:49] >> nigel joseph: good thoughts,

[55:51] commissioner bowden.

[55:53] >> look, my primary concern is

[55:58] the property actually abuts to

[55:58] residential.

[56:00] So, you know, when you

[56:02] consider -- I mean it is close

[56:03] to the aircraft,

[56:04] airport, yes.

[56:06] So there's a certain amount of

[56:08] noise that you're going to get.

[56:10] But it's not in the airport's

[56:14] flight path.

[56:17] So I'm just thinking about

[56:18] industrial and the potential for

[56:21] the noise.

[56:21] >> nigel joseph: I will also

[56:23] just throw in a disclaimer here

[56:25] if we're going to go against

[56:26] staff, we're going to need some

[56:26] policy.

[56:27] Definitely be thinking about

[56:27] those.

[56:29] Let the conversation continue.

[56:30] Commissioner louk.

[56:31] >> I think the biggest thing I'm

[56:33] chewing on here in terms of

[56:35] consistency or inconsistency,

[56:36] I'll be willing to bet my bottom

[56:38] dollar if we were to come in

[56:39] here with the expansion of the

[56:40] whole property going to res-6,

[56:42] this probably would be

[56:43] recommended as inconsistent

[56:45] which is the root of my question

[56:47] in terms of like coming back to

[56:48] staff saying what's the optimal

[56:50] long-term use for this property

[56:51] if it's not res-6.

[56:52] If there's some sort of

[56:54] development going to come in,

[56:55] planned development with a bunch

[56:57] of residential, there's no way

[56:59] it's going recommended for

[57:01] approval being in the coastal

[57:02] high hazard.

[57:03] >> nigel joseph: I will say for

[57:05] my part in my review meeting, I

[57:06] brought up a lot of these

[57:07] points.

[57:09] For me, we're not allowed to

[57:11] consider the zoning, but I

[57:12] always raise the point that the

[57:15] land use category light

[57:16] industrial planned means that

[57:18] there's a pd process that's

[57:20] going to go on at some point in

[57:20] time.

[57:21] I don't know what's going to

[57:22] come of that pd process, but I

[57:24] do know that's another bite at

[57:25] the apple, not only for this

[57:27] agency staff, which is a part of

[57:28] the zoning process to make sure

[57:30] that things like setbacks and

[57:32] buffers and screening get done.

[57:34] But also for other departments.

[57:36] So for me, whenever I see the

[57:38] li-p come up, I'm almost in

[57:39] automatic yeah, let it go

[57:42] through because, again, at some

[57:44] future point irrespective of all

[57:46] of these things that can happen

[57:48] that staff is forced to bring

[57:49] forward, you know, that second

[57:50] bite at the apple there is an

[57:52] important check on whatever

[57:54] development is going to happen

[57:54] there.

[57:56] So the applicant also brings up

[57:57] a lot of great points.

[57:58] Commissioner louk brings up a

[58:00] lot of great points.

[58:02] It's strange that tonight we're

[58:04] putting residential stuff in the

[58:06] coastal high hazard, all of a

[58:07] sudden, instead of trying to

[58:07] take it out.

[58:09] But I guess since it isn't close

[58:12] to Macdill it doesn't matter.

[58:14] But again, this all goes back to

[58:15] the points that I have spoken

[58:19] about for quite a while now.

[58:21] And I have said it down tracy

[58:23] and melissa but I'm going to be

[58:24] picking it back up.

[58:26] Be ready because it's coming.

[58:27] But this idea of staff giving

[58:29] these recommendations that

[58:31] aren't kind of very broad and

[58:33] narrowly focusing on certain

[58:37] things puts staff in an awkward

[58:37] position, you know.

[58:39] MS. Myers, you have done a great

[58:41] job, great presentation, great

[58:41] application.

[58:43] But again, the way this agency

[58:45] is set up with its systems puts

[58:47] staff in weird positions.

[58:49] And, you know, I don't think

[58:52] it's the best thing, but, you

[58:54] know -- and I'll just leave that

[58:56] alone and bring it up at some

[58:57] future point in time.

[58:59] But yeah, I would be willing to

[59:00] support the li-p going in there.

[59:02] I'm not going to pass the gavel

[59:04] and make a motion, but even in

[59:06] my briefing, my sense was this

[59:08] needed to go there, you know.

[59:11] So it's my 2 cents on this.

[59:13] Commissioner kugler.

[59:13] >> yes.

[59:14] One point about it sitting on

[59:17] the market for so long as a

[59:19] residential in these times in

[59:20] tampa is a good point.

[59:21] I don't know what language to

[59:23] use to bring it.

[59:25] As you mentioned, we have to

[59:28] come up with codes and

[59:30] objectives in order to go

[59:31] against staff recommendation.

[59:33] I don't know how to say that.

[59:37] But it does seem that it is an

[59:39] appropriate use next to the

[59:40] airport for sure.

[59:42] And there's a tremendous amount

[59:46] of industrial land very close,

[59:48] almost as close as the housing.

[59:50] So I don't know what language to

[59:52] use for that, but maybe somebody

[59:54] with a lot more experience with

[1:00:00] the code would help.

[1:00:00] >> nigel joseph: the applicant

[1:00:01] looks like she MAY have some

[1:00:02] suggestions.

[1:00:03] Usually MS. Zornitta comes up

[1:00:04] with some sggestions for us if

[1:00:05] they are needed.

[1:00:07] >> I don't want to jump the gun,

[1:00:10] but I did cite some comp plan

[1:00:13] policies that deal with

[1:00:15] protecting the airport and the

[1:00:16] coastal high hazard area.

[1:00:17] >> nigel joseph: okay.

[1:00:18] Commissioner cona has them.

[1:00:28] >> right there.

[1:00:28] >> nigel joseph: MS. Zornitta.

[1:00:31] >> related to the airport

[1:00:33] policies, it is geared toward

[1:00:34] the airport flight path which

[1:00:35] this is outside of.

[1:00:37] I just would caution about using

[1:00:40] those because this is not within

[1:00:41] the airport zone.

[1:00:43] And I mean we would absolutely

[1:00:44] not be supportive -- we do not

[1:00:46] put residential in the airport

[1:00:48] flight path, so I just want to

[1:00:51] be clear about that.

[1:00:51] Okay.

[1:00:52] >> even though it's not in the

[1:00:54] flight path, it still is

[1:00:56] affected by the noise and the

[1:00:56] vibration.

[1:00:57] >> nigel joseph: all right.

[1:00:58] Are there any other -- I can't

[1:01:02] see your mic there, commissioner commissioner

[1:01:03] jemison.

[1:01:04] You're hiding out back there.

[1:01:06] Any other comments or thoughts

[1:01:07] or questions from the

[1:01:08] commissioners on this one?

[1:01:12] It's not an easy one, I know.

[1:01:32] Are they going to be flooding

[1:01:33] into the single-family homes on

[1:01:34] the west side?

[1:01:35] I don't know the answer to that

[1:01:36] question if they have to be

[1:01:38] built that high, because I was

[1:01:43] trying to find part of the code

[1:01:44] for hillsborough county, and all

[1:01:48] I could find was that all

[1:01:49] properties located within the

[1:01:52] special flood hazard area shall

[1:01:53] have full compliance of the

[1:01:54] hillsborough construction code,

[1:01:57] and then it lists asce24 and

[1:02:01] that is a list of codes that say

[1:02:02] these different areas have to

[1:02:04] build one foot above base flood

[1:02:04] elevation.

[1:02:06] So if that's the case, do they

[1:02:09] need to build at 15 feet?

[1:02:12] And if that's so, are they going

[1:02:12] to be flooding into the

[1:02:19] neighbors?

[1:02:20] >> applicant looks like she was

[1:02:22] nodding her head, so I will let

[1:02:24] her opine on that.

[1:02:24] >> if

[1:02:26] for the record, gina grimes.

[1:02:27] When you are building in areas

[1:02:29] like that and you have that

[1:02:30] elevation requirement, there are

[1:02:31] different standards for

[1:02:32] commercial and residential.

[1:02:35] there are ways in which with

[1:02:36] commercial uses or industrial

[1:02:39] uses, that you can flood proof

[1:02:42] buildings to a higher height.

[1:02:43] It essentially achieves that

[1:02:45] higher height where residential,

[1:02:47] they're much more stringent

[1:02:48] because of the threat to, you

[1:02:49] know, life.

[1:02:52] And so they make you elevate to

[1:02:53] those higher, to those higher

[1:02:54] standards.

[1:02:59] So in this case, no fill is, you

[1:03:02] can't put the fill in certain

[1:03:04] areas that have those floods

[1:03:05] zone requirements.

[1:03:07] And all the retingz is going to

[1:03:07] be held on site.

[1:03:09] There are two very large

[1:03:11] retention ponds that are going

[1:03:12] to be on site.

[1:03:14] So it should have no impact to

[1:03:16] the adjacent residential, not to

[1:03:18] mention there is a one-acre

[1:03:20] retention pond to the north of

[1:03:23] the site as well as a drainage

[1:03:25] easement on the rear of the site

[1:03:25] already.

[1:03:26] >> andrew ross: thank

[1:03:29] >> thank you, MS. Grimes.

[1:03:30] Commissioner.

[1:03:31] >> just to note, I think in this

[1:03:32] area if I remember correctly

[1:03:34] base flood elevation is 11 feet

[1:03:37] so they probably won't have to

[1:03:38] build up more than -- sorry.

[1:03:41] >> I have the flood map from

[1:03:42] fema up right now, and it says

[1:03:46] 14 feet.

[1:03:46] >> okay.

[1:03:47] Regardless of what it is, I

[1:03:49] think you have to build a foot

[1:03:50] over base flood elevation,

[1:03:52] whatever that MAY be, and then

[1:03:54] any, you know, civil engineer

[1:03:56] worth their degree in civil

[1:03:59] engineering would make sure a

[1:04:01] site balance so that it wouldn't

[1:04:03] be understooding -- flooding

[1:04:05] into the neighborhood to the

[1:04:07] rear.

[1:04:08] >> chair: while we've jumped

[1:04:11] down allison's rabbit hole, I

[1:04:12] will chime in.

[1:04:13] Similar development on sligh and

[1:04:14] veterans in this area, it where

[1:04:17] four -- there are four or five

[1:04:18] big warehouses developed and

[1:04:20] when we have heavy rains, sligh

[1:04:25] floods now between benjamin and

[1:04:26] anderson road at that point, so

[1:04:28] I'm going to support this, but I

[1:04:30] would just call out in the pd

[1:04:32] and the civil engineering needs

[1:04:33] to be on point with that

[1:04:34] residential.

[1:04:35] I'm going to support consistency

[1:04:37] I should say.

[1:04:38] But the civil engineering review

[1:04:39] and plan on this needs to be on

[1:04:41] point with those residential

[1:04:42] properties.

[1:04:43] To the west.

[1:04:44] Just for those down the line who

[1:04:45] get the second bite at the

[1:04:48] apple.

[1:04:50] >> chair: all right.

[1:04:52] Are there any other thoughts?

[1:04:52] Comments?

[1:04:53] Questions?

[1:05:00] Discussion items on this one?

[1:05:01] Going once, going twice.

[1:05:02] I'm going to close the public

[1:05:03] comment on this one and open it

[1:05:04] up to motions from the

[1:05:07] commissioners on this item.

[1:05:07] Commissioner.

[1:05:10] >> motion to find hc/cpa 26-07

[1:05:11] consistent with the

[1:05:13] comprehensive plan based on flu

[1:05:16] policy 2.23 and cm policy

[1:05:18] 3.1.14.

[1:05:19] >> second that.

[1:05:20] >> chair: all right, a motion of

[1:05:24] consistency finding, citing

[1:05:26] policy 2.23 and cm policy 3.1.14

[1:05:27] and a second to that by

[1:05:28] commissioner cueingler.

[1:05:30] Are there any questions,

[1:05:31] comments, or discussions from

[1:05:33] the commissioners before we go

[1:05:36] ahead and take our vote?

[1:05:37] All signify they are agreement

[1:05:39] by saying -- their agreement by

[1:05:40] saying aye.

[1:05:41] Those opposed?

[1:05:42] Bowden.

[1:05:44] All right, so that's 7-1 ayes,

[1:05:46] bowden no.

[1:05:50] And the motion carries.

[1:05:53] All right.

[1:05:58] Next up we have item 2b, hc/cpa

[1:06:00] 26-10 comprehensive plan map

[1:06:01] amendment, southeast of kingsway

[1:06:03] road and thonotosassa road and

[1:06:09] presenter is lilyann linehan.

[1:06:12] >> good evening, commissioners,

[1:06:13] lilyann linehan planning

[1:06:15] commission staff here to present

[1:06:17] c/cpa 26-10 located southeast

[1:06:19] f kingsway road and

[1:06:20] thonotosassa road.

[1:06:21] This is a privately initiated

[1:06:22] map amendment that is small in

[1:06:24] scale and approximately

[1:06:25] 24.22 acres.

[1:06:26] The applicant is requesting to

[1:06:27] change the future land use

[1:06:29] designation from

[1:06:32] agricultural-rural-1/5 and

[1:06:34] residential 1 to residential-2.

[1:06:37] This is the general location

[1:06:38] map.

[1:06:40] It in the rural area within the

[1:06:41] limits of the thonotosassa

[1:06:42] community plan.

[1:06:44] It is located along lake thon

[1:06:47] totosassa and north of east

[1:06:47] kingsway road.

[1:06:48] Here is an aerial of the site.

[1:06:51] The site is outlined in pink.

[1:06:52] And the site is currently

[1:06:53] undeveloped

[1:06:55] developed and is surrounded by

[1:06:56] agricultural and single-family

[1:06:59] land uses.

[1:07:01] This is looking south of

[1:07:02] thonotosassa road into the

[1:07:05] subject site.

[1:07:14] This is looking north from thon thon

[1:07:14] tosatta road.

[1:07:16] This is looking south from

[1:07:17] thonotosassa road into the

[1:07:18] adjacent eastern parcel and the

[1:07:20] subject site is to the right of

[1:07:23] this parcel.

[1:07:26] Thus is also looking north from

[1:07:27] thonotosassa into the adjacent

[1:07:28] eastern parcel.

[1:07:29] The subject site is to the left

[1:07:32] of this parcel in this photo.

[1:07:34] This is looking west down

[1:07:36] thonotosassa road from the

[1:07:36] subject site.

[1:07:37] This

[1:07:39] the site is behind the

[1:07:40] photographer and this is looking

[1:07:41] east down thonotosassa road from

[1:07:42] the subject site and the site is

[1:07:45] behind the photographer.

[1:07:47] Currently the future land use

[1:07:48] designation is

[1:07:50] agricultural-rural-1/5 and

[1:07:51] residential 1.

[1:07:52] The agricultural-rural-1/5

[1:07:54] category allows for one dwelling

[1:07:56] unit per five gross acres and a

[1:07:58] `maximum floor area ratio of.25.

[1:08:00] This designation allows for the

[1:08:01] consideration of farms, ranches,

[1:08:02] feed lots, residential,

[1:08:04] neighborhood commercial,

[1:08:05] offices, industrial uses related

[1:08:07] to agricultural uses, and mining

[1:08:08] related activities.

[1:08:09] The residential 1 category

[1:08:11] allows for one dwelling unit per

[1:08:13] gross acre and a maximum floor

[1:08:15] area ratio of.25 and this

[1:08:16] designation allows for the

[1:08:18] consideration of agricultural

[1:08:19] farms, ranches, residential,

[1:08:20] eighborhood, commercial,

[1:08:21] offices, and multipurpose

[1:08:23] projects.

[1:08:24] The site is currently surrounded

[1:08:26] by the agricultural rurlt 1

[1:08:27] rural

[1:08:28] 1 to 5 and residential 1 future

[1:08:29] land use designations.

[1:08:31] the applicant is proposing to

[1:08:32] amend the future land use

[1:08:34] category to residential-2.

[1:08:35] The residential-2 category

[1:08:37] allows for 2 dwelling units per

[1:08:38] gross acre and a maximum floor

[1:08:39] area

[1:08:42] ratio of.25.

[1:08:44] This designation allow there is

[1:08:46] is -- for the consideration of

[1:08:49] the agricultural, residential,

[1:08:51] multifamily and multipurpose

[1:08:52] projects.

[1:08:53] Currently under the

[1:08:55] agricultural-rural res 1 to 5

[1:08:57] the site could consider up to 16

[1:09:00] dwelling units or 263,755 square

[1:09:02] feet of nonresidential uses.

[1:09:03] And under the proposed future

[1:09:05] land use designation of

[1:09:06] residential-2 the site could

[1:09:10] consider up to 48 dwelling units

[1:09:11] or 263,755 square feet of

[1:09:12] nonresidential use.

[1:09:13] The proposed amendment will

[1:09:15] increase the maximum potential

[1:09:16] residential density and will not

[1:09:18] change the maximum potential

[1:09:21] nonresidential intensity.

[1:09:23] The proposed amendment received

[1:09:24] no formal objections, and the

[1:09:25] list of full comments is

[1:09:27] provided within the report

[1:09:28] packet for review.

[1:09:29] While formulating our

[1:09:30] recommendation, planning

[1:09:31] commission staff reviews all

[1:09:33] related policies regarding the

[1:09:34] proposed request, and though the

[1:09:35] request is related to several

[1:09:37] general policies, staff found

[1:09:39] three main areas of

[1:09:40] inconsistency.

[1:09:41] The proposed request is

[1:09:42] inconsistent with flu's

[1:09:44] objective up with.2 and

[1:09:45] policies 1

[1:09:49] 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 which

[1:09:50] defines the rural area as a

[1:09:51] place intended to provide for

[1:09:52] long-term agricultural uses,

[1:09:54] large lot rural residential

[1:09:55] uses, and undeveloped natural

[1:09:56] areas.

[1:09:58] And that within the rural area,

[1:09:59] densities showp on the future

[1:10:00] land use map will be no higher

[1:10:03] than one dwelling unit to five

[1:10:04] gross acres unless located

[1:10:05] within an area identified with

[1:10:06] the higher density land use

[1:10:08] category on the future land use

[1:10:10] map at, as a suburbening

[1:10:11] enclave, planned village,

[1:10:12] planned development, pursuant to

[1:10:15] the planned environmental

[1:10:16] community or rural community

[1:10:17] which carry higher densities.

[1:10:18] The site currently carries a

[1:10:19] split future land use

[1:10:20] designation of

[1:10:22] agricultural-rural-1/5 and

[1:10:23] residential 1 which are both

[1:10:24] densities found within and are

[1:10:26] intended for the rural area.

[1:10:27] The nearest suburban enclave

[1:10:30] within the rural area is located

[1:10:31] approximately.9 miles west of

[1:10:32] the site with the future land

[1:10:34] use designation of residential-2

[1:10:38] and the second closest is

[1:10:40] 1.04 miles northwest of the site

[1:10:41] with a future land use

[1:10:42] designation of residential 6.

[1:10:43] The existing future land use

[1:10:45] between these two suburban

[1:10:46] enclaves and the subject site is

[1:10:49] residential 1 and

[1:10:50] agricultural-rural-1/5.

[1:10:50] While some of the surrounding

[1:10:52] areas contain higher

[1:10:54] designations of residential 1

[1:10:55] and this is higher than the

[1:10:56] general required 1 to 5 density,

[1:10:58] the introduction of

[1:10:59] residential-2 within the rural

[1:11:01] area that is not contain and is

[1:11:04] not in close proximity to a

[1:11:07] similar suburban enclave with a

[1:11:07] higher future land use

[1:11:10] designation of residential-2 is

[1:11:11] inconsistent with rural area

[1:11:13] objectives and policies.

[1:11:16] Those objectives 4.4 and policy

[1:11:18] 4.4.1 require new development to

[1:11:19] be compatible with the

[1:11:20] surrounding neighborhood and

[1:11:21] flu's policy 4.4

[1:11:23] 4.4.7 calls for

[1:11:24] lands fronting a water body to

[1:11:26] have density and/or intensity

[1:11:28] comparable and compatible with

[1:11:29] other development parcels and

[1:11:30] lots fronting the water body

[1:11:32] outside of the urban service

[1:11:33] area.

[1:11:34] The surrounding land use

[1:11:36] patterns comprise of mostly low

[1:11:37] density single-family

[1:11:38] residential and agricultural

[1:11:39] uses.

[1:11:40] The surrounding areas to the

[1:11:41] east, west, and south of the

[1:11:43] site are generally large lot

[1:11:44] rural residential developments

[1:11:45] that contain future land use

[1:11:47] designations of

[1:11:48] agricultural-rural-1/5 or

[1:11:49] residential 1.

[1:11:50] And the proposed request to

[1:11:51] change the future land use to

[1:11:53] residential-2 for suburban style

[1:11:54] development would not complement

[1:11:55] the existing development pattern

[1:11:56] within the area.

[1:11:57] And it would not serve as a

[1:11:59] transitional area between more

[1:12:00] suburban development pattern and

[1:12:02] more rural development patterns.

[1:12:03] Based on the current existing

[1:12:04] future land use categories

[1:12:06] around lake thonotosassa, the

[1:12:07] eastern portion of the lake is

[1:12:09] adjacent to

[1:12:10] agricultural-rural-1/5 and the

[1:12:13] western portion is surrounded by

[1:12:13] residential 1.

[1:12:15] There are no future land use

[1:12:17] categories along lake

[1:12:18] thonotosassa with a density

[1:12:19] greater thatten 1 dwelling unit

[1:12:21] per acre.

[1:12:23] A flews

[1:12:27] future land use of

[1:12:28] residential-2 would not

[1:12:31] comparable and compatible which

[1:12:34] is inconsistent with flu's

[1:12:34] policy 4.4.7.

[1:12:35] Lastly this site is within the

[1:12:37] limits of the thonotosassa

[1:12:37] community plan.

[1:12:38] Goal 3 of the community plan

[1:12:40] seeks to provide improved yet

[1:12:41] affordable infrastructure and a

[1:12:42] balance of residential,

[1:12:43] commercial, and other land uses

[1:12:45] while maintaining the rural area

[1:12:48] or rural nature of the

[1:12:49] thonotosassa area.

[1:12:50] Goal 5 of the community plan

[1:12:51] seeks to protect water,

[1:12:53] wildlife, air, soil, and trees

[1:12:55] through effective planning,

[1:12:56] consistent enforcement of

[1:12:57] existing regulations, and

[1:12:58] incentives.

[1:12:59] Additionally, the community plan

[1:13:01] lists specific strategies that

[1:13:02] the community will use to

[1:13:04] achieve its goals.

[1:13:05] Post notably the plan -- most

[1:13:07] notably the plan requires

[1:13:08] minimum lot sizes of one acre

[1:13:08] for residential development

[1:13:11] within the residential 1

[1:13:12] agricultural estate and

[1:13:13] agricultural-rural future land

[1:13:14] use categories and it is

[1:13:15] explicitly stated within the

[1:13:16] strategies to protect the area's

[1:13:17] rural character.

[1:13:18] The future land use change to

[1:13:20] residential-2 would allow for

[1:13:21] suburban style development

[1:13:22] within the rural area, and would

[1:13:24] not protect the existing

[1:13:25] community character that the

[1:13:26] thonotosassa community plan

[1:13:27] intends to maintain within the

[1:13:29] rural area.

[1:13:30] goals 3 and 5 seek to balance

[1:13:31] private property rights with the

[1:13:33] protection of the environment

[1:13:34] and rural character, and given

[1:13:36] that the site is located along

[1:13:38] lake thonotosassa and within an

[1:13:39] agriculturally heavy area of the

[1:13:40] community, a residential-2

[1:13:42] category would be too intense

[1:13:43] and would not further the goals

[1:13:45] of the community plan.

[1:13:46] Planning commission staff

[1:13:47] recommends that the proposed map

[1:13:48] amendment by found inconsistent

[1:13:50] with the goals, objectiveses,

[1:13:51] and policies of the

[1:13:51] unincorporated hillsborough

[1:13:53] county comprehensive plan, this

[1:13:54] concludes my presentation, I'm

[1:13:56] here if you have any questions.

[1:13:57] >> chair: thank you.

[1:13:58] Does the applicant have a

[1:14:03] presentation?

[1:14:04] >> thank you.

[1:14:05] Good evening, isabelle albert

[1:14:10] with halff, 1,000 north ashley

[1:14:10] drive.

[1:14:11] I have the presentation here you

[1:14:12] can see.

[1:14:13] So generally staff did explain

[1:14:15] where the site was and the

[1:14:16] acreage and everything, and it

[1:14:19] has a split land use

[1:14:19] designation.

[1:14:21] So when rewe reviewed this, when

[1:14:23] we first filed for this

[1:14:24] application, we actually

[1:14:26] requested for the ar portion for

[1:14:26] res 1.

[1:14:27] So that's a goal is to have one

[1:14:29] unit to the acre.

[1:14:31] And I understand that you all

[1:14:32] don't look at the zoning, but we

[1:14:34] have to kind of look at what's,

[1:14:36] `what makes sense and what works,

[1:14:38] and so at the same time, with

[1:14:39] the new stormwater pond

[1:14:41] regulation that increased by

[1:14:44] over 22%, it's like what can we

[1:14:49] really fit there, what works

[1:14:49] there.

[1:14:50] This is currently what's the

[1:14:51] zoning is.

[1:14:52] The zoning is approved for

[1:14:53] 14-point lots.

[1:14:54] You'll see where the residential

[1:14:55] 1 is that one-unit to the acre

[1:14:57] and then the res 5, so it's

[1:15:02] approved for 14 lots.

[1:15:03] When we laid out the site and

[1:15:05] having to take into

[1:15:06] consideration the minimum one

[1:15:08] laker lot size, we went from

[1:15:10] having permitted 14 units to now

[1:15:11] 13 units that can fit there.

[1:15:13] And so that just didn't make

[1:15:13] sense.

[1:15:16] And so I remember I was talking

[1:15:17] with MS. Zornitta, I said well

[1:15:20] we can either go like this and

[1:15:21] continue with, with res 1, but

[1:15:23] then at the plan development

[1:15:25] portion of it, I'm going to ask

[1:15:26] for half-acre lots in order to

[1:15:30] get that one to one unit.

[1:15:31] Or just be clean and just do the

[1:15:34] res-2 to get out of this minimum

[1:15:36] requirement of the minimum

[1:15:36] one-acre lot.

[1:15:37] That's the only reason why we're

[1:15:39] doing this is because we want to

[1:15:40] have smarter lots.

[1:15:42] And if it was in any other

[1:15:43] plans, community plans that

[1:15:46] would be permitted.

[1:15:48] And also part of the zoning, we

[1:15:49] also had to look at these

[1:15:51] improvements that, what are we

[1:15:53] going to be hooked for.

[1:15:55] And one of them in discussion

[1:15:56] with the county engineer was to

[1:15:59] have improve the road from our

[1:16:00] site all the way to where the

[1:16:02] res-6 is currently doing.

[1:16:03] And so you have to consider all

[1:16:05] of that and say res 1 still is

[1:16:07] not helping us and so therefore,

[1:16:11] we're going to request res-2.

[1:16:13] So this is brings us to the

[1:16:14] stormwater pond.

[1:16:17] this is our plan that's under

[1:16:19] review with the county where

[1:16:21] along the frontage there,

[1:16:23] there's not proposed anything

[1:16:25] prior to having two units that

[1:16:26] were proposed there, we're not

[1:16:28] proposing any development on,

[1:16:29] along the lake, and then we have

[1:16:31] our stormwater ponds where

[1:16:32] they're supposed to be located

[1:16:35] with the residence in the back.

[1:16:38] But that still allows, that

[1:16:39] development is one to one.

[1:16:41] And if we didn't do that, we

[1:16:45] would be at 13 units.

[1:16:46] We also looked at the

[1:16:49] comprehensive plan policies,

[1:16:50] policies 3.1 says new

[1:16:52] development should recognize the

[1:16:53] existing community.

[1:16:55] As you heard this is a mix of

[1:16:58] uses in this existing community.

[1:16:59] We have agriculture, we have one

[1:17:01] to five, we have along the lake,

[1:17:03] one to one, we have more

[1:17:05] intensive here and then we have

[1:17:07] right there a wedding venue that

[1:17:09] people can as a commercial use.

[1:17:12] And so the introduction of the

[1:17:14] half acre lot but you're still

[1:17:15] one to one is not disturbing

[1:17:20] that community.

[1:17:22] They have to be, you know, in

[1:17:24] harmony with each other.

[1:17:25] The residential to residential

[1:17:27] is not going to disturb the

[1:17:29] harmony of having similar uses

[1:17:34] next to each other.

[1:17:37] Look at objective 3.1, 3.2,

[1:17:39] 3.24, that talks about the

[1:17:42] community plan, and this is in

[1:17:43] community plan thonotosassa

[1:17:45] community plan.

[1:17:47] And it brings us the gold number

[1:17:50] 3 and number 5, which also staff

[1:17:52] has pointed out, but it includes

[1:17:54] the encouragement for grrg but

[1:17:55] it protects the property owner's

[1:17:57] rights and value and establish

[1:17:58] the open space and greenspace

[1:18:00] and the low density, and that's

[1:18:02] what that you know one acre in

[1:18:04] am mm is to ensure that --

[1:18:05] minimum is to ensure that there

[1:18:06] is still a low density in the

[1:18:07] rural service areaerment but

[1:18:08] when you come and really develop

[1:18:11] it, if we did minimum one acre

[1:18:13] lots, we would be well below

[1:18:14] what the density would be

[1:18:16] permitted, but by doing what

[1:18:18] we're requesting, we are still

[1:18:23] maintaining that one to one

[1:18:23] unit.

[1:18:24] And environmental protection

[1:18:26] we're not tuching the frontage

[1:18:27] portion of the lake.

[1:18:28] It's like about two acres.

[1:18:31] We're not touching that.

[1:18:33] Other policies 4.4 which is the

[1:18:35] neighborhood protection, this is

[1:18:36] maintain, the neighborhood is

[1:18:39] still going to be maintained as

[1:18:45] what it is, there is no, there's

[1:18:47] no disturbance of what could

[1:18:49] possibly happen if this is

[1:18:50] developed.

[1:18:52] And then these are, you know,

[1:18:54] again, like creation of like

[1:18:56] uses, creation of complementary

[1:18:57] uses, and all of that you know

[1:18:59] it meets all of othose as well

[1:19:02] as the 4.4.7 about the lake

[1:19:05] frontage that we are not

[1:19:06] touching.

[1:19:07] So these are the policies that

[1:19:09] I've listed for you tonight

[1:19:12] where we found that it is

[1:19:13] consistent with the

[1:19:14] comprehensive plan by stating

[1:19:16] those same policies.

[1:19:20] That concludes my presentation.

[1:19:20] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[1:19:22] We had one individual signed --

[1:19:22] joo thank you.

[1:19:23] We had one individual sign up in

[1:19:31] the public comment on this one,

[1:19:33] and I will call robert

[1:19:33] alvis.

[1:19:34] Come on down.

[1:19:37] you have three minutes, sir.

[1:19:38] >> MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners.

[1:19:40] My name is robert alvis.

[1:19:44] I live at 11907 thonotosassa

[1:19:46] road, the mkes me the most

[1:19:48] affected person in hillsborough

[1:19:50] county by this.

[1:19:51] I amright

[1:19:53] I am right next door.

[1:19:54] Some of the staff's photographs

[1:19:57] had a picture of a car in a

[1:20:00] driveway, that's my driveway.

[1:20:02] This is ridiculous.

[1:20:06] This is an agricultural area.

[1:20:08] What they're asking for is to

[1:20:09] create a subdivision in the

[1:20:11] place a subdivision does --

[1:20:13] should not exist.

[1:20:14] There are nub

[1:20:15] none there.

[1:20:16] There are none on that side of

[1:20:18] the road.

[1:20:19] Closest place is up on kingsway

[1:20:23] and it's one to five.

[1:20:24] That's all it should be there,

[1:20:26] but unfortunately, they have got

[1:20:29] a one to one ratio.

[1:20:34] Or some oit, 16 acres.

[1:20:37] I urge you to defeat this.

[1:20:41] It does not fit our area.

[1:20:43] Getting rid of agricultural

[1:20:45] designation does not apply

[1:20:46] anywhere.

[1:20:49] As they stated, we're surrounded

[1:20:52] by farms, cattle ranch.

[1:20:54] There are privately one-to-one

[1:20:56] houses there, privately built.

[1:20:59] No subdivisions.

[1:21:01] No extreme concentration like

[1:21:04] they're talking about.

[1:21:10] So once again, I urge you to say

[1:21:11] no.

[1:21:13] We have gone through this before

[1:21:15] a couple of years back when they

[1:21:17] tried something similar.

[1:21:20] This is basically just a

[1:21:22] variation on a theme.

[1:21:24] And it was defeated.

[1:21:26] I won't go into why.

[1:21:27] It's public record.

[1:21:29] so look it up.

[1:21:34] You guys have the ability.

[1:21:35] I will stop there and thank you

[1:21:37] for your time.

[1:21:39] >> chair: thank you, sir.

[1:21:41] All right.

[1:21:48] Three empty response to the

[1:21:51] applicant.

[1:21:52] >> commissioners, good evening,

[1:21:54] william mu loy, 325 south

[1:21:55] boulevard.

[1:21:57] I'll be very quick and direct on

[1:21:58] what we're doing here.

[1:21:58] If we could cluster this we

[1:22:00] would be asking for r1 across

[1:22:01] the entire site.

[1:22:04] I know how important and

[1:22:06] protected the rural service area

[1:22:06] is.

[1:22:08] I know the emotions that can

[1:22:09] ride on it.

[1:22:10] I'm fought going to talk about

[1:22:11] zone -- not going to talk about

[1:22:12] zoning but when there is a

[1:22:13] zoning, this is going to come in

[1:22:14] at one-to-one.

[1:22:16] The only reason for the r2 again

[1:22:17] is to allow us to cluster, give

[1:22:18] us a little bit of flexibility

[1:22:20] with our lot sizes so we don't

[1:22:23] end up platting roads in

[1:22:24] people's front yards which is

[1:22:25] what could eventually happen

[1:22:26] here.

[1:22:27] I do want to point out too,

[1:22:30] isabelle mentioned the

[1:22:31] accelerated stormwater program

[1:22:32] we have.

[1:22:33] What we're doing at the north

[1:22:34] end of that property is going to

[1:22:35] be exceptional for that lake

[1:22:36] because according to these new

[1:22:38] rules we have, we can't let any

[1:22:40] outfall that's not treated or

[1:22:41] has any suspended particulates

[1:22:43] leave our property.

[1:22:44] So those two giant swimming

[1:22:45] pools will be a boon for the

[1:22:46] lake and there is a reason we

[1:22:47] put them there.

[1:22:48] that's the way the water's going

[1:22:49] south to north.

[1:22:51] So given those and the fact that

[1:22:52] we do have to construct a road

[1:22:54] rights to the front door of a

[1:23:01] pocket of r6 I think are points

[1:23:04] for consideration that this is

[1:23:07] not a rural enclave but it's a

[1:23:09] point for -- suburban enclave.

[1:23:11] It's a point for rural

[1:23:11] development.

[1:23:12] >> chair: all right, any

[1:23:15] questions or discussion?

[1:23:16] MR. Kugler.

[1:23:17] >> yes, I was very impressed

[1:23:18] with missouri

[1:23:21] MS. Linehan's presentation,

[1:23:23] it was very detailed.

[1:23:24] It

[1:23:26] I was a bit confused when I

[1:23:27] believe it was the name isabelle

[1:23:29] had presented the one-to-one.

[1:23:32] I didn't understand what she was

[1:23:34] describing as where, we're

[1:23:35] cutting it to half an acre and

[1:23:37] yet it's still one-to-one.

[1:23:39] It seemed to me that it was two

[1:23:40] to one rather than one to

[1:23:41] one-to-one,

[1:23:42] maybe you can clear that up for

[1:23:49] me.

[1:23:50] >> of course, with the new

[1:23:51] rules, the stormwater ponds more

[1:23:52] land is being used for that.

[1:23:54] So if we're now being restricted

[1:23:57] in the area to developed, and so

[1:23:59] by doing so, when we actually

[1:24:01] quite engineered it out just to

[1:24:04] get an idea, but the, and the

[1:24:05] new rule just came in JANUARY so

[1:24:06] it's still very new to some of

[1:24:09] us, and so I asked my engineers

[1:24:11] to just plot out quickly what

[1:24:13] would be required, and what do I

[1:24:14] enup with, and I ended up with

[1:24:16] `less units than what I'm

[1:24:17] currently approved for.

[1:24:19] But it's still brings you, if

[1:24:20] you look it still would be very

[1:24:28] similar to the one-to-one.

[1:24:29] >> so in other words the

[1:24:31] houses remain the sime number on

[1:24:34] a tighter lot.

[1:24:35] >> you need a half acre because

[1:24:36] you're in the rural service area

[1:24:39] for, well and septic.

[1:24:41] It's the half acre lot but just

[1:24:43] in this plan it says minimum

[1:24:45] one-acre lot, because they want

[1:24:48] to maintain that low density.

[1:24:48] >> I understand now.

[1:24:49] Thank you.

[1:24:50] >> thank you.

[1:24:52] >> chair: all right.

[1:24:53] Are there any other questions,

[1:24:54] before you jump in, I'll throw

[1:24:56] in there if anyone's going to go

[1:24:58] against staff, remember we're

[1:25:00] going to need some spallacies to

[1:25:01] keep that in mind.

[1:25:04] >> just to be very clear about

[1:25:06] one to one, 24 acres, 24 units.

[1:25:08] That's exactly what we mean.

[1:25:09] >> chair: all right.

[1:25:10] Any other thoughts?

[1:25:12] Questions?

[1:25:13] Comments?

[1:25:14] Commissioners sink.

[1:25:16] >> I

[1:25:20] sienk.

[1:25:21] >> I struggle with this one

[1:25:22] because if you look at the area

[1:25:24] to the west, there's a road

[1:25:25] right on the kingsway it's

[1:25:27] almost the same depth and there

[1:25:29] are seven, maybe eight units,

[1:25:31] and for this area it just seems

[1:25:36] like even 14 seems double I

[1:25:38] don't know it just does not seem

[1:25:43] consistent with the area.

[1:25:44] >> chair: good points.

[1:25:45] Any other thoughts?

[1:25:46] Questions, comments?

[1:25:50] Commissioner bowden.

[1:25:53] >> yeah, I'm, and as I think

[1:25:55] through this, you know, being

[1:25:57] separating the comp plan with

[1:26:00] the zining piece, you know, and

[1:26:04] I can only take one or the other

[1:26:05] into consideration, and --

[1:26:08] >> chair: you can only take one,

[1:26:08] yeah.

[1:26:10] >> so you know, so the zoning

[1:26:13] piece was kind of to me

[1:26:15] irrelevant because it was more

[1:26:20] of -- more -- you know, to me.

[1:26:23] So I just wanted to make tat

[1:26:23] comment.

[1:26:25] You know, I would look a little

[1:26:27] more comp -- look fr something a

[1:26:29] little more compelling as to why

[1:26:31] it was other than to give me

[1:26:32] information that I really can't

[1:26:38] use to make a decision.

[1:26:38] >> chair: good thoughts.

[1:26:39] Good thoughts.

[1:26:40] MS. Zornitta.

[1:26:43] >> and I would just emphasize

[1:26:45] that the thonotosassa community

[1:26:48] plan does speak to wanting the

[1:26:51] minimum lot size of one acre in

[1:26:55] the residential 1 and the

[1:26:57] agricultural-rural, so yes, we

[1:26:59] did talk with the applicant

[1:27:01] about making the site all one

[1:27:03] land use category because it is

[1:27:05] awkward when they have a split

[1:27:09] like that in the residential 1,

[1:27:12] and that would be I think

[1:27:14] consistent with the thonotosassa

[1:27:17] community plan, but you know,

[1:27:18] the thonotosassa community

[1:27:20] plan's very clear about wanting

[1:27:27] that one acre development

[1:27:28] pattern.

[1:27:28] >> chair: all right.

[1:27:30] Are there any other questions?

[1:27:31] Comments?

[1:27:32] Thoughts from commissioners?

[1:27:34] Not seeing a lot of excitement

[1:27:36] around the dais here, so going

[1:27:40] once, going twice, I'm going to

[1:27:41] to close the public comment and

[1:27:42] open it up to motions from the

[1:27:43] commissioners on this item.

[1:27:43] Commissioner cona.

[1:27:46] >> yeah, motion to find hc/cpa

[1:27:48] 26-10 inconsistent with the

[1:27:48] comprehensive plan.

[1:27:49] >> chair: all right,

[1:27:51] commissioner jemison.

[1:27:52] >> second.

[1:27:53] >> chair: commissioner cona with

[1:27:54] a motion of inconsistency

[1:27:55] finding, commissioner jemison

[1:27:55] seconds that motion.

[1:27:57] Are there any questions,

[1:27:57] comments, thoughts from the

[1:27:59] commissioners before we take our

[1:28:00] vote?

[1:28:01] And we would all signify their

[1:28:03] agreement by saying aye.

[1:28:05] Those opposed?

[1:28:07] That motion carries unanimously.

[1:28:08] All right.

[1:28:10] That was our last item of

[1:28:14] business for tonight, so at 7:26 P.M., this public hearing

[1:28:15] is adjourned.

20260511 Planning Commission - PH

Agenda

Transcript